https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49044 Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as creating liability for confiscation and penalty without proof of mens rea, because those clauses contain no express requirement of intent to evade duty. The provision was read as covering removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules and non-accountal of goods, where the manufacturer's knowledge is inherent in the prohibited conduct. The reasoning treated such revenue-control measures as imposing absolute liability unless the text itself requires a guilty mind, distinguishing them from clause (d), which does refer to intent. This approach was supported by earlier decisions on similar statutory provisions. en-us Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2024 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49044 Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as creating liability for confiscation and penalty without proof of mens rea, because those clauses contain no express requirement of intent to evade duty. The provision was read as covering removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules and non-accountal of goods, where the manufacturer's knowledge is inherent in the prohibited conduct. The reasoning treated such revenue-control measures as imposing absolute liability unless the text itself requires a guilty mind, distinguishing them from clause (d), which does refer to intent. This approach was supported by earlier decisions on similar statutory provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49044